I would rather restart from scratch (using parts of the SRFI 204
document that won't go away, of course).

Other projects currently have priority for me, though. As for a
pattern matcher, more important than the SRFI 204 matcher would IMO be
type-safe pattern matchers because they can express problems more
clearly. What I have in mind is a facility to define union types. With
each union type comes a specific matcher that can be used to
destructure values of the union type. This is usually what to do; one
generally doesn't want to destructure arbitrary types, what SRFI 204
offers.

Am Fr., 7. Jan. 2022 um 15:44 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
>
> Can you send out your usual set of open threads?  I'm willing to summarize them.
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:40 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Felix and Marc (and SRFI-204 subscribers).  The first draft of SRFI 204 was published 540 days ago today.  I've been relaxed about the ninety-day SRFI limit, but 540 days is far too long, and there has been no public progress since July, if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>> We need to decide soon whether this important SRFI will be withdrawn, or whether we will recruit someone else to take over.  I'm open to either option, or to a new draft.
>>
>> If there has been no public progress in one of these directions by February 1st, I'm going to mark the SRFI withdrawn.  We can always start a new version, without losing any work, once someone truly has the time to work on it.
>>
>> Thanks for all of your work on this SRFI so far.